Mayan Collapse

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: accurately9% picked this

   With careful analysis, archaeological evidence can be used to reconstruct accurately the historic activity of

   This sounds way too optimistic about the ability of the archaeological record to give us an accurate version of history. The author's comments in the last paragraph reflect much more uncertainty: "We don't know how reliable this record is. New information we might discover could easily unravel our theories."

   9%
2. B

   Unsupported Comparison3% picked this

   Archaeological evidence is more useful for reconstructing the day-to-day activities of a culture than

   The only comparison the author seems to make in the last paragraph comes from the "especially". We could probably say she'd agree that the archaeological record provides a more uncertain picture for complex civilizations than for simpler ones. But we don't have ammunition to support any contrast between day-to-day and long-term trends.

   3%
3. C

   Unsupported Causal Relationship4% picked this

   The accuracy of the archaeological record for reconstructing historic activity is dependent on the duration

   Nothing in the last paragraph speaks to a causal relationship between "accuracy" and "duration". The only causal difference-maker alluded to is a relationship between "accuracy" and "complexity".

   4%
4. D

   Too Strong: not appropriate10% picked this

   The archaeological record is not an appropriate source of data for

   This is the flipside of (A). Now we're going too much in a pessimistic direction. The author isn't saying we shouldn't use the archaeological record. She's just sprinkling in some reminders that our understanding of the Mayan collapse is inherently uncertain, given the limitations of the archaeological record.

   10%
5. E

   Correct74% picked this

   Historic activity can be reconstructed from archaeological evidence, but it is ultimately impossible to confirm the

   Why this is right

   This is more strongly worded than we'd expect ("ultimately impossible"), but this is the answer we can best support with the available text. The author is saying amenable to Lowe's explanation. She isn't saying it has a central flaw, but if there is a central flaw, it's just the inherent uncertainty provided by the archaeological record. We have to assume the available evidence paints a true picture, but we can't confirm it. It's hard to know accurately the record reflects historic activity, and a hypothesis (i.e. a reconstruction of historic activity) can be tested only against the best available data. That harshness of "only" helps us live with the extremity of "impossible" in the answer choice. If we can only test the accuracy of this reconstruction against the best available data, and it's hard to know if that data accurately reflects historic activity, then we won't be able to 100% confirm that our reconstruction is accurate. The last two sentences also help us support this answer, because the author is saying, "We could easily discover some new piece of information that would then show us that our reconstruction is totally off." If a hypothesis is always subject to falsification, then it's impossible to confirm its accuracy.

   Skill tested: Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

   74%